Current Events > I don't get the "different viewpoint" argument...

(+) Yeah! (+)

About the things Charlie Kirk expressed.

How can people (online or off) say this is a difference of opinion??
Examples:

"If I see a Black pilot, Im going to be like, boy, I hope hes qualified."

"Happening all the time in urban America, prowling Blacks go around for fun to go target white people, thats a fact. Its happening more and more."

"If Im dealing with somebody in customer service whos a moronic Black woman, I wonder is she there because of her excellence, or is she there because of affirmative action?"

"The American Democrat party hates this country. They wanna see it collapse. They love it when America becomes less white."

"The great replacement strategy, which is well under way every single day in our southern border, is a strategy to replace white rural America with something different."

The lot of those were pulled from his show, btw.
How are ANY of those valid viewpoints? Are the people saying that he "had a difference of opinion" either just saying it cuz they don't know, or are they closeted bigots or what?

Does anyone know any people who said similar? Have you asked that person and shown them what those viewpoints actually were?

People say that to dress it up as something acceptable.

It worked too, for years. Back in 2016 you'd have so many people genuinely thinking that it was ok to have viewpoints like this. Now though, more people are able to shut down sealioning and not give this an inch.

These opinions are perfectly normalised and within the Overton window in America now. These are all acceptable views.

We shouldn't "get" it. We should oppose it. It's a racist, fascist front. Those talking points are getting people killed.

I found the full quote regarding his "I don't believe in empathy" that was being thrown around everywhere and in full context its like..nothing. he goes onto say he thinks sympathy is a better word because nobody can truly knows how someone else feels.

It seems pretty inoffensive really. Just an opinion on the validity of a word.

But yeah, all these quoted here are pretty clear cut awful. He's clearly racist. Even his final words were basically "but what about black people".

There's a difference between having viewpoints (even ones that are offensive and based in unsupported hatred), and advocating to make those viewpoints the basis of public policy.

It's not just words, or a different viewpoint. People like Kirk want society to be governed according to their prejudices. They want to hurt the people they don't like. Build a society in their twisted image. They seek the fame and the power that would enable them to do that.

The right wing are racists. They believe that cis white males are the superiors which should rule everybody else.
Everything good is because of them, and everything bad is because of the others.
By claiming that clearly racistic claims are just a different viewpoint, they are normalising racism and making it easier to gain more power.
Just look at them, they demanded blood, a crusade when they thought the shooter was a left transperson.
When it was revealed to be a white guy from a right-wing home? "Kirk would have wanted us to pray to Jesus to save his lost soul"...

"Hurr durr so much for the tOlErAnT lEfT m i rite, bet this is part of their great replacement strategy to burn everything down and turn everyone into trans gay black commie socialists! Well not on mah watch, I'm off to make a few more Billy Bob Juniors with mah sister-wife, so ah can teach 'em how to wave a carbine, hyuck hyuck!"

BombermanGold posted...

Have you asked that person and shown them what those viewpoints actually were?

"Those quotes were taken out of context" has probably been working overtime the past few days.
(As if there's a context in which they'd be remotely acceptable)

Conservatives are liars. They knowingly lie all the time.

The media and conservatives are using this moment to sanewash and make the ideals Kirk spouted out be seen as normal and worthy of accepting instead of being offended and put off by and they are really going for it even after the killer was found they're still blaming the left, still touting this as him being silenced by angry leftists

I had to unfriend someone because they compared Kirk to MLK.

Sole bump.

We live in the age where your choices are white male or political. We've shifted a lot in recent years.

tremain07 posted...

The media and conservatives are using this moment to sanewash and make the ideals Kirk spouted out be seen as normal and worthy of accepting instead of being offended and put off by and they are really going for it even after the killer was found they're still blaming the left, still touting this as him being silenced by angry leftists

It's not even "this moment" they've been doing it for awhile.

HighSeraph posted...

It's not even "this moment" they've been doing it for awhile.

Yep. This is just what happens when you let all the mainstream media outlets get bought out by a small handful of billionaires: they sanewash their pals and slander their enemies.

bluezero posted...

I had to unfriend someone because they compared Kirk to MLK.

Weird as Kirk hated MLK.

Somebody should have asked him what's the difference between a moronic black woman and a moronic white woman.

Yeah, I'm just baffled (more agitated, really) that the people who say he had valid viewpoints, when challenged, don't list (or are unwilling to say) any one of what that mofo said.

I honestly hope enough people save the lot of the stuff he said on his show so that if there's a takedown spree, there's some combo of audio and visual evidence to show that Charlie Kirk was not a good person, ever.

I mean, it is a difference of opinion, that is factually true. But, by the same token, Hitler also had "different viewpoints" on Jews and minorities.

Just because it's a different opinion doesn't mean it's something that should be accepted or tolerated.

darkknight109 posted...

Just because it's a different opinion doesn't mean it's something that should be accepted or tolerated.

I think that's the crux of it that should be asked of those people.

"Do you accept that Charlie Kirk held extremely bigoted views?"
No sugarcoating it, just be direct and see what those folks say.

You have to look at it from a boomer point of view. (While not all conservatives are literally boomers, the utterly overwhelming majority do tend to think like boomers and at least somewhat follow boomer cultural standards.)

In their day / community, these were seen as perfectly valid opinions. They cant get their head around that no, these things are no longer seen that way and for good reason. The absolute biggest key thing to understand about boomer / conservative mentality is that their first rule is the first thing I learn is true; including if that is that no one really knows the answer to something (thus making every statement on that subject an opinion). Its not impossible for them to override it, but its uncommon.

If someone commits a hate crime, society will still (overall) recognize it as appalling, but if someone wants the government to commit those same crimes, it's supposed to be an acceptable "agree to disagree" situation. We allow so-called moderates (the portion of them who genuinely aren't on board with hate) to be cowards who delude themselves about what the "both sides" actually are because they don't actually care about the issues, they just want to pat themselves on the back for being "unbiased" since they're not directly being targeted and they're too shortsighted to see how letting people stupid enough to be bigots control everything will hurt everyone.

I think the best way to counter it is "One person's freedom ends where another begins".

I also like how someone (I think on here) phrased it. Basically whoever violates the proverbial contract can't complain how they are spoken to.

myusernameislame posted...

We allow so-called moderates (the portion of them who genuinely aren't on board with hate) to be cowards who delude themselves about what the "both sides" actually are because they don't actually care about the issues, they just want to pat themselves on the back for being "unbiased" since they're not directly being targeted and they're too shortsighted to see how letting people stupid enough to be bigots control everything will hurt everyone.

Both MLK and Malcom X took issue with this.

BombermanGold posted...

I think that's the crux of it that should be asked of those people.

"Do you accept that Charlie Kirk held extremely bigoted views?"
No sugarcoating it, just be direct and see what those folks say.

most of them would just dismiss you as "woke" for even mentioning the word "bigot".

really, there's just no discussion to be had. even if their argument were invalid, they'll do everything in their power to either gaslight you or twist reality into whatever they want it to be. we're in an era where we don't really have debates anymore, just a lot of shouting and talking over and soundbytes.